The Grand Assumption of Science

[Luminal]

Note: I use science, I trust science, believe it will improve our lives and the lives of our children and their children, and so on. However, step away from your immersion in science, empiricism, reason, and logic for just a moment, and consider the assumption you are making.

 

Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses.

 

How reliable are our senses? Well, in dreams, you must conclude that they are outright fooling you. The scary part? You don't know the sensations are false in a dream. In movies, you see and hear (and one day perhaps even feel, taste and smell) the sensations. Are your senses right? Of course not, those events never happened. Yet at least you know that a movie didn't occur in real life.

 

The point, senses are not reliable. In fact, our brains can be deceived with reletive easily. Dreams, delusions, psychoactive drugs, hallucinations, simulations (full simulations are at most a few decades away), movies... all have one thing in common, they fool our senses, and more often than not, we believe the unreliable information while it is being presented to us.

 

"But, wait a moment!" you say, "I can commincate with other humans to confirm my sensations are accurate. That counts for something, right?"

 

Does it count for anything? Keep in mind, even the voices and words of others is still your own sensation. I don't know about you, but I've had several dreams in which I've asked others if I was dreaming, and they assured me I wasn't (even laughed for asking the question).

 

With that aside, science certainly isn't a hollow pursuit, but neither is it the final answer. Just as religious individuals should always keep a small part of their mind somewhat open to the minutest possibility that their faith is misplaced, scientists and those who practice it should do the same.

[Sayonara]

However, step away from your immersion in science, empiricism, reason, and logic for just a moment, and consider the assumption you are making.

 

Just so we are clear, is it your intention to suggest that we should consider it unscientifically, arbitrarily, and without reason or logic?

 

[theCPE]

Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses.

 

Well, this is a little misleading.

 

Our senses may be the final bridge data crosses before entering our brain but currently most observation and scientific discovery is not directly a result of our senses (what we see, hear, smell) but a result of instrumentation.

 

This means that no matter the descrepancies in individuals senses, due to instruments the observations of our "reality" are equal.

 

Also, this really sounds to me a lot like Descartes, "I think therefore I am".

 

Sure it is slightly altered, but it is the same idea.

 

"How do we know this isn't all just a dream/movie."

 

There are some obvious reasons that movie going and reality are different, one being we have prior knowledge of hollywood, it isn't an act of desception at all.

[Dak]

Just so we are clear, is it your intention to suggest that we should consider it unscientifically, arbitrarily, and without reason or logic?

 

hehe.

 

I guess you have to step away from empericism, at least. given that the suggestion is that our sences might be unreliable, i don't think empericism can be used to disprove that.

 

isn't "we're living in a non-illusionary world" an axiom of science? i.e., our sences might be innacurate and fallilbe, but, if we see something, it's probably there?

[Paralith]

I took a philosophy class a long time ago, and I know for a fact one of the big players addressed this idea - basically, we could be brains in a box being fed everything we think we're experiencing, and we wouldn't know it. I just don't remember who exactly it was. /^^

 

I tend to think of it in the same way I think about the existence of some god who could be conjuring all the scientific evidence in the world just to fool us into thinking we're figuring it all out. If it's true - well, there's nothing we can do about it. Better to continue to function in reality as we know it then to try and prove something that is completely impossible to prove - or disprove, if you break the rules of the thread and follow science/logic.

[Luminal]

Just so we are clear, is it your intention to suggest that we should consider it unscientifically, arbitrarily, and without reason or logic?

 

 

Well, that leads us to the next assumption of science: that human logic works.

 

However, I should have made it clear, logic and reason based on anything you've picked up through your senses, not reason and logic altogether. My bad.

 

Yet, I suppose there is no such thing as logic that isn't based on something learned through your senses, so we're back to square one. It is quite a mess, isn't it?

 

In short, throwing out logic is the step beyond throwing out the reliability of our senses. We can analyze senses without necessarily saying that all the logic founded upon them is wrong too.

 

I doubt I'm making much sense, so let me give you an example. Movies aren't real nor an accurate portrayal of the real world, but someone "from another reality" could still watch our movies and get a basic understanding of how our existence works: there is causality to actions, there are three dimensions in space, certain mathematical principles apply, there is gravity, there is an atmosphere from which we breath, and so on. The specifics might be off (every woman being a supermodel and an amazing fighter both; always a dramatic resolution to every event; etc) but they'd get the idea.

 

So, I can question if this world is a simulation or dream without questioning whether, say, causality or logic exist or not, although they may very well not. And in that case, in becomes moot entirely.

 

I'll summarize, scientists (and everyone) assume everything is A and always has been and always will be, while I'm saying it could be B, C, or D... or even all the way down to Z, but if it's Z, even asking the question is impossible, so let's just stick to A through D now.

[Sisyphus]

Scientists do assume that, yes. In fact, all of us do, all the time, and we can't not assume that, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, supposing rational thought to be illusory as your first step means there is no second step. In fact, there is no first step, since the very idea defeats itself. That doesn't mean we're not aware of the assumption, however.

[geoguy]

If you have a few minutes, this is an appropriate talk posted on another science forum:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344

 

Dawkins on the topic of our senses and what is our 'reality'.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why bother with what might be outside of our senses when what we experience is all through our senses?

 

e.g. if it turns out that the world is actually 400 degrees and ablaze, it doesn't really matter, because we'll never know and it won't hurt us.

[Luminal]

Scientists do assume that, yes. In fact, all of us do, all the time, and we can't not assume that, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, supposing rational thought to be illusory as your first step means there is no second step. In fact, there is no first step, since the very idea defeats itself. That doesn't mean we're not aware of the assumption, however.

 

As I posted above, I intended those to be two separate ideas. Questioning our senses' reliability and our rational mind are two different, but related, ideas.

 

This world might very well be a simulation (in fact, many would argue that it is more likely), but the 'ultimate' or 'final' reality might be very similar to ours, even the same maybe. So, once again, I'll clarify that I'm doubting our senses, not the mind unto which those senses give their information. Both might be unreliable, but that's not within the scope of this topic.

[Luminal]

Why bother with what might be outside of our senses when what we experience is all through our senses?

 

e.g. if it turns out that the world is actually 400 degrees and ablaze, it doesn't really matter, because we'll never know and it won't hurt us.

 

Good point, and I agree. The fulfillment of our wants/needs and our contentment in life are completely and only defined by what we can perceive, not by what is true yet we might not know.

 

"What you don't know can't hurt you." Well... at least in the sense of our emotions anyways.

[bascule]

Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses.

 

How reliable are our senses?

 

[...]

 

The point, senses are not reliable. In fact, our brains can be deceived with reletive easily.

 

Wow, you'd really like Kant. You're basically regurgitating his arguments about the separation of noumena and phenomena.

 

Noumena, a.k.a. sense data objects a.k.a. perceptions are all your consciousness has access to. Objects in your head aren't real objects, they're just elaborate reconstructions of those objects in thought space.

 

That's assuming there's any reality at all! Perhaps you're just a brain in a vat, being fed deceptive sensory patterns by a diabolical madman.

 

Scientists make two brash assumptions:

 

1) Reality is as it presents itself (i.e. sense data objects are reliable models of reality)

 

2) Reality is comprehensible in terms of physical law/mathematics

 

My question would be: do you dispute either of these? If so I have no answers for you, but I don't see that path as being particularly productive.

 

I will call those that question either of these assumptions wrong, but I do that out of my beliefs. Those who do question these assumptions can just as easily call me wrong, but again, it's just a battle of words. There's no way to be conclusive about either of these topics.

 

All I can offer up in defense of these assumptions is the massive explanatory power of science.

[Luminal]

Wow, you'd really like Kant. You're basically regurgitating his arguments about the separation of noumena and phenomena.

 

Noumena, a.k.a. sense data objects a.k.a. perceptions are all your consciousness has access to. Objects in your head aren't real objects, they're just elaborate reconstructions of those objects in thought space.

 

Well, I'm not "regurgitating" his argument, because I've never heard of it. Yet, his ideas seem to be on target. Our entire reality, even if this is the real world, is effectively a simulation nonetheless, one that our brains project within our heads, to give rise to intelligence and increase our chances of survival.

 

That's assuming there's any reality at all! Perhaps you're just a brain in a vat, being fed deceptive sensory patterns by a diabolical madman.

 

Scientists make two brash assumptions:

 

1) Reality is as it presents itself (i.e. sense data objects are reliable models of reality)

 

2) Reality is comprehensible in terms of physical law/mathematics

 

My question would be: do you dispute either of these? If so I have no answers for you, but I don't see that path as being particularly productive.

 

I follow those rules, yet I know that they very well could be wrong. In fact, I think it most likely that those assumptions are wrong. For every "real universe" in existence, there are an infinite number of possible "sub-realities" that can be created... as in dreams, simulations, hallucinations, false memories. These are indistinguishable to the participants in those "sub realities" until they leave them and are enlightened to their previous state.

 

But none of this keeps me from accepting and practicing science, as it has yet to fail me so far in my relatively brief speck of an existence in the scheme of the cosmos.

 

I will call those that question either of these assumptions wrong, but I do that out of my beliefs. Those who do question these assumptions can just as easily call me wrong, but again, it's just a battle of words. There's no way to be conclusive about either of these topics.

 

All I can offer up in defense of these assumptions is the massive explanatory power of science.

 

You're completely right; there is no way to conclusively answer this... at this time, anyways. Perhaps in future human endeavors, our intellectual capabilities will be enough orders of magnitude greater than they are now to answer this question. Remember, less than 3 orders of magnitude separate the information contained in the brain of a mouse and the brain of a human. Nanotechnology, AI, genetic engineering... these may boost our minds to an adequate level... or we can hope.

[YT2095]

even if what you say were true, how do you explain it`s effects upon Instrumentation?

 

are you saying that meter needle may lie, or GM counter clicking away is Faking it, or a radio is imagining it when it`s picks up a signal?

 

how might a Computer (the purest of all logic) come to the same conclusion that a scientist might?

[swansont]

The point, senses are not reliable. In fact, our brains can be deceived with reletive easily.

 

But what science depends on the reliability of senses? e.g. one uses CCDs and photodetectors and the measurement of a photocurrent, not the eyes, to measure light intensities. You use a microphone to measure sound, not your ears. Data and calculations aren't optical illusions that can fool the brain.

 

edit: D'oh. Didn't scroll all the way down and see YT's post.

[Paralith]

even if what you say were true, how do you explain it`s effects upon Instrumentation?

 

are you saying that meter needle may lie, or GM counter clicking away is Faking it, or a radio is imagining it when it`s picks up a signal?

 

how might a Computer (the purest of all logic) come to the same conclusion that a scientist might?

 

The point is we could be living in a constructed reality that is programmed to show us instruments and computers acting in a certain way. I'm sure we've all had dreams where, say, dogs could talk, and everybody knew dogs could talk, and dogs had always talked and would always talk. And if you were trapped in that reality and didn't know it, all would seem right with the world.

 

I feel like this is kind of a pointless thing to discuss, though. We could be trapped forever and everything could be an illusion that will never break and never let us free!!! Well, yes. But from my point of view this life isn't so bad, and at least it's fairly consistent, and we can use logic and science to function within it. If we're actually trapped in an alternate reality, there's nothing we can do about it. *shrugs*

[YT2095]

oh dear, not ANOTHER "Matrix Conspiracy" thread

 

some of you Still never fail to disappoint me, I really thought you`d all Grown Up a bit!

 

Thread Moved.

[insane_alien]

Okay, so you are saying that we are living in a perfect illusionary world where there is no way of telling whether we are in an illusion or not and the illusion acts perfectly consistently and has no errors.

 

isn't this similar to trying to use science to prove/disprove god. there is no possible test that can confirm or deny it.

[Luminal]

oh dear, not ANOTHER "Matrix Conspiracy" thread

 

some of you Still never fail to disappoint me, I really thought you`d all Grown Up a bit!

 

Thread Moved.

 

..........

 

Did I say that? You should read down further.

 

This is about the reliability of sensory information to our brains, not a "matrix conspiracy". This is as important a scientific pursuit as any other. As displayed by psychoactive drugs, dreams, or even simple photographs and movies, our senses do not require much to be deceived.

 

Thankfully, our brains can discern that movies are not happening before our very eyes, whilst not so for dreams and hallucinations.

 

However, the point is not whether our brains can successfully determine the veracity of senses on a day to day basis with knowledge available to us, but whether knowledge not available to us is influencing our sensory input, and consequentially allowing us to make wrong decisions.

 

For example, at the most simple level, subatomic particles might be striking regions of the brain and affecting the vision of each individual differently. Or, at a more intricate level, one could have a moderate case of Schizophrenia and deluding himself about the realities of his life. Or, on a more intricate level still, I could be waking from a dream in a few second, dreaming I'm typing on a forum (I'm ashamed to admit I have dreamed about chatting of forums many times before ). Yet more and more intricate elaborations in our brains may exist, but we cannot and do not worry about those as we have no means to test them in a reliable way.

 

It is the great assumption that science makes.

 

Thanks for throwing this over into the pseudoscience section. Now, obviously, it is but mere speculation that we assume our senses are infallible, right?

 

Isn't it speculation that our senses are always right, considering we know for a fact that they aren't? Meh, I expected more from the replies I suppose.

[Luminal]

Okay, so you are saying that we are living in a perfect illusionary world where there is no way of telling whether we are in an illusion or not and the illusion acts perfectly consistently and has no errors.

 

isn't this similar to trying to use science to prove/disprove god. there is no possible test that can confirm or deny it.

 

Actually, the assumption that our senses are indeed impeccable information harvesters would be more akin to the belief/disbelief in a deity, do you not think?

[YT2095]

you still haven`t answered my questions in post #14.

 

and avoid lame Solipsisms!

[Luminal]

even if what you say were true, how do you explain it`s effects upon Instrumentation?

 

are you saying that meter needle may lie, or GM counter clicking away is Faking it, or a radio is imagining it when it`s picks up a signal?

 

how might a Computer (the purest of all logic) come to the same conclusion that a scientist might?

 

As someone else mentioned, our dreams do follow their twisted form of logic. I have a close relative that has been dead for many years, and he always appears in my dreams as alive, and in those dreams, I nor anyone else question him being there.

 

Do you not see what I'm getting at? Even the computer is still your own perception. The GM counter is still your own perception. There is no method to ever avoid this. You must take the leap of faith that those perceptions are always accurate, even when we know that not to be the case.

 

How is it "speculation" that dreams, movies, photographs, hallucinations, and such are not real, pray tell? Some we know aren't real while they are occurring (movies, games, and such) while others we aren't aware while they are occurring.

 

We assume that our waking, sober world is perceived without substantial error. That is the assumption science must make. And it is an assumption that may turn out to be either right or wrong.

[Luminal]

and avoid lame Solipsisms!

 

Well, what is your reality? A model created by a network of neurons in your brain. You do not interact with the physical world itself. Rather, you interact with the model of reality your mind is creating moment by moment.

[YT2095]

then explain to me how a sniper half a mile away that you know NOTHING about can kill you dead before you even hear the BANG?

 

if you`re "making" your own reality, how could this happen? I watch You drop in my (+)

[Sayonara]

Luminal is not proposing a matrix conspiracy.